Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the contextual note that the ids serve as input for update_fixture, which is useful but not a rich behavioral trait. It does not describe return format, pagination, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first defines the resource, the second adds a critical integration point. No wasted words, and the key relational information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and annotations already cover its safety. The description explains the relationship to update_fixture but lacks details on return structure (no output schema) or pagination behavior. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single parameter tournament_id fully documented in the schema. The description does not provide additional semantics for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states what the tool returns ('the courts a tournament is played on') which implies a list operation, and connects its output to another tool. However, it does not begin with a clear verb like 'List' and relies on the name 'list_courts' to establish the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly links to the sibling tool update_fixture by explaining that the returned ids are used as its court argument. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool, but there is no mention of when not to use it or other alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.